I'm going to expose what I consider to be a direct attempt by the United Nations to manipulate the media and the public into acting on the 'biodiversity crisis'. Before I do that, I feel compelled to say at least one good thing about the UN. They are very open with their documentation. All the documents I reference in this article were taken directly from their website here, or from websites which are linked within those documents. They aren't making an attempt to hide the following.
You may have heard in the news recently that there is a biodiversity meeting taking place right now in Japan. It is called the The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), here is their website. The UN seems to be pushing biodiversity much more this year than ever before (this is the International Year of Biodiversity), so I decided to go through the documents released at the convention and see what they are talking about. Here is what I have found:
1. The UN has actively trained journalists (called 'media training') in the proper way to cover biodiversity stories
2. The UN has developed partnerships with news organizations to release biodiversity stories and press releases
3. Developed educational programs (called 'education for sustainable development') incorporating biodiversity teaching intended for children, also created The Green Wave program to reach out to children
4. Developed so called Communication, Education, and Public Awareness (CEPA) toolkits and workshops in order to "create broadly based support for the issues" by giving advice like this: "To involve people, nothing is more powerful than working on their emotions". I will take each of these in turn and show what they have already done and what they are trying to do. Let's start with the UN engaging in 'media training' on how to report biodiversity.
It is spelled out explicitly in this pdf, entitled Communication, Education, and Public Awareness, written on August 15, 2010. On page 5 of the pdf there is a section entitled Priority Activity 4 - Media Relations. Here is a screen capture of the first few points in that section:
Let's focus on the second point. They say:
Thanks to the financial assistance of the Government of the Netherlands, media training was carried out at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Journalists from developing countries participated in briefings on the issues under discussion at the meeting of the Conference of the Parties and wrote articles. The success of the training inspired the planning of another media briefing at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, with financing from the Government of Spain. This practice has increased press coverage of meetings of the Conference of the Parties, and had led to the development of a roster of media interested in biodiversity stories.
They are openly training the media in how to report biodiversity stories. This schedule and this schedule both confirm this, both the 23'rd and 24'th are devoted entirely to 'media training'. What exactly is media training? It certainly sounds bad, but there are very few details to go on. Here is an account from a group sending reporters to the conference:
Both reporters will also attend a two day media training coordinated by the CBD Secretariat which will help provide them with insight as to the issues at this conference. It is also planned that experiences learnt at the CBD COP 10 be shared nationally with their fellow media colleagues upon return.
I'm not sure what providing insight entails. The objectivity of reporters who attend a two day training session would seem to be in question, especially when the report lauds what positive results were obtained from the last round of media training.
UN / Media partnership
The UN has also joined in partnerships with certain news agencies to issue biodiversity stories:
15. In support of this priority activity, the Executive Secretary carried out a number of activities including integrating journalists into subregional workshops on CEPA, developing partnerships with media organizations such as Inter Press Services (IPS), the Panos Institute, IIED, as well as working even more closely with the network of regional information officers of the United Nations Environment Programme. This has taken place at the same time that there have been an increase in the number of announcements, press releases and stories that are sent out to media.
Also a few points down this appears:
18. For the International Year of Biodiversity, a partnership was established with Inter Press Services to disseminate stories about biodiversity during the year. A biodiversity reporting guide was also created and published in English and Spanish here.
The UN created partnerships with the Inter Press Service (IPS), the Panos Institute, and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). A quick look at these sites shows that the partnership has yielded nothing but positive stories about the convention; this is especially true of the IPS. Let's take a look at that IPS biodiversity reporting guide and see what it contains.
The "Biodiversity Reporting Guidelines -Putting life on the front page" consist of three documents. The main document provides context and definitions, as well as examples of significant linkages between biodiversity and a range of sectors. The document includes ideas for writing biodiversity stories and how to pitch them to editors and present them to readers. It also outlines key reporting and journalism principles.
This main document is accompanied by:
a. A calendar of biodiversity-related events (meetings, conferences, etcetera) held around world over the May 2010-January 2011 period. The list also includes significant dates celebrated worldwide, which can be useful as pegs or opportunities for reports and stories.
b. A list of international conventions, treaties and agreements linked directly or indirectly to biodiversity, with links to institutional web sites and, in some cases, a brief description of the instrument.
That is pretty cut and dried, but just in case you are a journalist lacking any ambition or originality at all, they give you a list of possible story ideas:
2. Unexpected events, such as disasters or crises, offer excellent opportunities for reporting and writing feature stories with in-depth analyses of related issues. The challenge is to go beyond what is visible on the surface, because every event has an immediate cause and an underlying cause. The immediate cause is the most visible and obvious link. Reporters must reveal what lies beneath, because more often than not the underlying causes are more important. Exploring and exposing the underlying causes makes for good journalism, by adding new information, new insights and new understandings.....
There are more, but you get the picture. So far we've seen that the UN has developed partnerships with certain media groups, and when the journalists show up to the conference they are submitted to two days of media training in order to get insight. This hardly resembles how press coverage is supposed to work, at least in my mind. Perhaps I'm naive. However, it doesn't finish there.
Educating Children / The Green Wave
From the same pdf mentioned earlier:
46. To support educational objectives of Parties, during the biennium, the Secretariat has undertaken and supported the development of educational resources for children and youth. Financial contributions from the Governments of Canada and Spain have contributed to this.
What exactly are they funding? They are supporting a program called Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). This initiative was started in 2005 with a push to have it integrated within a decade. This document deals with how biodiversity can be incorporated into the ESD. Here are some excerpts:
(b) Biodiversity (especially ecosystems) illustrates global interdependences which consideration is vital to ESD. Secondly, the success of ESD depends on the structural involvement of all relevant actors and cooperation beyond the (formal) education sector. The use of already existing internationally connected networks of knowledge, practice and research and the promotion of the biodiversity/ESD nexus in a comprehensive concept is important. It is also essential to involve all levels of government. Examples of this approach are eco-schools, the ASP network, nonformal and adult learning networks (CAE), professional training, biosphere reserves, UNESCO Chairs, UN University research areas, ICLEI et al. National policy debates and existing mechanisms should be used to link the desired learning and education goals.
(c) ESD has benefited from a reinvigorated global debate on climate change and biodiversity loss. More environmental education is required in formal and informal education, with better focus on biodiversity in a more holistic way, involving links to ethical, social, cultural and economic aspects. It is also important to raise awareness of the importance of the work of civil society in biodiversity conservation and education. In this respect, efforts are beginning to be made to link formal and information education in the ESD context. In fact, a variety of activities have been implemented at all levels - from local to international. However, some feel that the favourable momentum of the decade has not been sufficiently harnessed.
This is very clearly a push from the UN to change both formal and informal education to reflect their concerns over biodiversity and sustainability. However, their most successful campaign isn't mentioned above. It's called The Green Wave, and this 18 page document has nearly 3 pages devoted to it. I won't put it all in, but I will show you some highlights:
45. The contribution of The Green Wave to implementation of the educational component of the programme of work on CEPA is considerable and will be outlined below. The scope of its mobilization and the flexible framework in which activities may be carried out make it an ideal platform upon which biodiversity can be integrated into formal, informal and non-formal contexts of learning.In the upcoming biennium, it will be important to further develop the contribution of tools such as The Green Wave.
51. The Green Wave is a global initiative to support education of children and youth on biodiversity...
52. The Green Wave campaign seeks to raise awareness and educate children and youth on the loss of biodiversity and the need for action to preserve it. Each year, a "green wave" of action takes place on the IDB. Throughout the year children and youth are encouraged to plan biodiversity-related activities through the school year. The Green Wave also supports other national, international and global tree planting initiatives such as the UNEP-led Billion Tree Campaign.
57. In 2010, children and youth were joined by dignitaries, teachers, parents, experts and supporters from Government, companies, non-governmental organizations and other organizations in celebrating The Green Wave. Thousands of students from more than 1,000 schools and groups who took part in 63 countries have uploaded pictures and stories of their activities to The Green Wave website, and several hundred more groups have participated in the celebrations.
I certainly don't have a problem with kids planting trees, I planted quite a few for my older neighbor when I was young. But when you look at who created this program, who funds it, and what its goals are, it may make you think twice. What exactly do they teach the children when they are planting trees? When they say "the need for action to preserve it [biodiversity loss]", what exactly are they recommending to our children? Clearly, this program is part of ESD, whose goal is to get children to grow up with sustainability on their mind. Thousands of children around the world are learning exactly what the UN wants them to learn, through something as innocuous as planting trees.
Training journalists, partnering with news agencies, and educating children in questionable material are strange roles which the United Nations is now playing. Are the members of the UN aware that this biodiversity crisis is being presented in a very controlled manner by the UN itself? Since billions are being asked for to divert this crisis, shouldn't we take a more skeptical approach of an issue which is almost solely being presented by the UN?
The fourth and final point about the CEPA is too long to contain in this post. I'll post it tomorrow. It is essentially the blueprint for how government portrays the biodiversity crisis to the public. It contains government surveillance, attempts to alter formal education, advice on manipulating the public, and it lays out the steps that governments are urged to take to implement their CEPA (public relations) phase by phase.
The Solar Robber Barons
Comment from Canada
Some foreign — and even domestic — solar equipment manufacturers are complaining that Ontario’s buy-local policies will cost investment and jobs. It takes some gall to criticize dumb and damaging initiatives when your existence depends on them.
A group of photovoltaic producers — led by Japan’s Mitsubishi Electric Corp. — is complaining that to receive Ontario’s super-premium rates for solar energy, projects must have a 60% local content. This, bleat the solar robber barons, is bad for the economy!
Worldwide, solar companies have been boosted by the policy pandemic of feed-in tariffs, whereby the high costs of uneconomic renewable power are averaged down with much cheaper conventional electricity sources. This is leading to sharp cost increases for consumers.
Takashi Sato, president of Mitsubishi Electric Sales Canada, was reported as saying this week that “We are very encouraged by the FIT [feed-in-tariff] as far as a tariff program is concerned.”
You bet they are! Who wouldn’t want their industry subsidized by having consumers forced to pay multiples of the market price for a portion of their purchases?
“However,” continued Mr. Sato, “the program contains some poison because of the domestic content requirement.”
We beg to differ. The program is pure hemlock all the way through.
Japan has challenged Ontario’s Green Energy Act at the WTO, with the EU and United States cheering it on, but this is sheer hypocrisy, even if the Ontario government’s actions are indefensible (It remains to be seen whether Dalton McGuinty plans to go the Danny Williams route of flouting trade agreements in the knowledge that Ottawa has to pick up the bill).
The U.S. is complaining about China’s renewable industry subsidies, but China has fired back noting that a $60-billion-plus chunk of Mr. Obama’s stimulus package consisted of such subsidies, with “Buy American” clauses attached.
“What America is blaming us for is exactly what they do themselves,” said Mr. Zhang Guobao, vice-chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission. “Chinese subsidies to new energy companies are much smaller than those of the U.S. government. If the U.S. government can subsidize companies, then why can’t we?”
Well of course they can. The problem is that such actions are collectively suicidal.
When launching his own campaign of hypocrisy in Ontario, Mitsubishi’s Mr. Sato claimed that the solar industry was set to boom. Au contraire. The solar industry is headed for a crash, and any superficial buoyancy is not due to bright market prospects but to frenzied activity in anticipation of subsidy withdrawal. As usual, Icarus McGuinty appears a little slow on the uptake, still convinced he can bear the Ontario economy Sol-wards on waxy wings.
Spain had a similarly crazy policy that subsidized farmers to plough their orchards under and cover them with solar panels. Supposedly shrewd men of the soil invested to take advantage of a solar tariff of around 44¢ per kilowatt-hour, 10 times that paid to mainstream suppliers (but still way short of Ontario’s top rates of over 70¢).
When he unveiled a solar plant in 2007, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero declared, “We are a world power in this field, we are capable of exporting our technology and competing across five continents and we are today at the forefront of the renewable-energy industry.”
When Mr. Zapatero took a delegation to Washington a year ago, President Obama (who is to put more solar panels on the White House, just like Jimmy Carter) praised Spain as a model of green-energy-driven economic transformation.
It certainly is: the transformation to ruin.
Typical of such bold moves toward “sustainability,” Spain’s proved utterly unsustainable. Soon Madrid found itself saddled with upward of €126-billion of solar obligations. Investors wound up importing most solar equipment because domestic suppliers couldn’t meet the surge in demand. Studies indicated that each renewable job cost two regular jobs.
Spain, like most countries, has found itself with a surging deficit in the wake of the economic crisis. This in turn has forced it to renege on its commitments to high solar power prices. The response has been outrage from the solar industry, a slump in investment and a sharp drop in the price of solar panels. Critics point out that these government’s policy lurchings have damaged the investment climate more generally.
Anybody with half an economic brain could have seen that the universal policy urge to subsidize green energy was going to lead to both massive oversupply and unsustainable drainage of the public purse. Meanwhile we should remember that the whole green energy thrust is likely based on scientific sand.
As Czech President Vaclav Klaus pointed out in a speech this week to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (which was excerpted on this page yesterday), climate change is far more about political power and rent-seeking than science. The solar fiasco shows that this thrust is not merely dangerous to freedom, as President Klaus indicated, it is also fiscally suicidal.
Back in Ontario, meanwhile, Mr. Sato’s arm-twisting kicker is that unless foreign solar manufacturers get their full section of the subsidy trough, they may have to uproot and head for, well, even more stupid jurisdictions. That means Ontario might not be able to reach its renewable targets! We can only hope so.
Farewell, Mr. Sato. Don’t forget to send a postcard.
The Failure Of Sweden’s Red-Green Alliance
Rather than propelling the Social Democrats to power it appears that the electoral alliance with the greens and the left party only served to antagonise traditional voters. Talk of a new political identity is futile unless it is based on our own values.
I was born and raised in northern Sweden, rugged country with strong labour roots. Up north, the Social Democrats easily hit 50 per cent in the polls. Many years ago, however, I moved to Stockholm. Here, the party struggles to attract one-fifth of the vote. Moving between these very different realities, I’ve gained a deeper understanding of the challenges that now confront the party.
Across Europe, middle-of-the-road voters are leaning to the right. The social democratic parties have been taken to the electoral cleaners in country after country and Sweden is no exception. In the 2010 general elections, Sweden’s Social Democrats registered their worst result since 1911, garnering a mere 30 per cent of the vote.
This was hardly a shock. We social democrats have meandered into the proverbial political wilderness – with neither a compass nor a map. In Sweden part of this ill-defined journey has involved holding hands with the greens. However, this relationship has been fraught with political and ideological dilemmas.
It more or less boils down to disparate views on economic growth. The Social Democrats and unions have always agreed that the redistribution of wealth requires, well, wealth. The party has also contended that economic growth is the key to developing new and greener technology for a more sustainable future.
Sweden’s greens, however, increasingly perceive economic growth to be incompatible with their lofty environmental aspirations. The global financial crisis only served to cement this view. “To this day, no country has proven that it is possible to couple economic growth with responsible natural-resource management,” said the spokesperson of the Swedish Green Party, Maria Wetterstrand, earlier this year.
In this election cycle, one can pinpoint two specific events related to confused coalition politics that severely undercut support for the Social Democrats.
The first was in October 2008. Mona Sahlin, chairman of the Social Democrats, unveiled the red-green alliance. The move, which explicitly excluded the Left Party, was unpopular in the inner circle. Sahlin immediately backpedaled and welcomed the reformed communists into the fold.
The second was in May 2010. With just six months until the elections, all eyes were on the red-green alliance has it shaped up to present its budget. The global financial mood was shaky, not least due to the situation in Greece, and people expected a responsible, sensible plan.
The alliance failed to deliver and took a fatal blow in the polls. The public trusted the reigning center-right government when it came to sound economic policy, and had doubts about the opposition’s level of economic competence.
These were two crushing setbacks from which alliance never fully recovered. The Green Party did improve its share of the electorate, but it mainly siphoned voters from the Social Democrats. The strategy to attract young, environmentally aware, urbanites who would have traditionally voted centre-right simply never panned out.
Indeed, many traditionally social democratic voters directly cited a wariness of the red-green experiment. According to the polling institute United Minds, 32 per cent of those who turned their back on the Social Democrats did so mainly because of the collaboration with the Left Party. Roughly 44 per cent said that the Left Party had gained too much influence over policy; whilst 45 per cent cited the Green Party’s influence.
Distrust of the Green Party was especially high in historically Social Democrat strongholds. I have experienced this suspicion firsthand when talking to family and friends in northern Sweden. “They want to take away our way of life. They want to close our factories, take our cars and our snow scooters. They want to restrict hunting and travel. We have absolutely nothing in common. Their values aren’t my values. Why are we in bed with this party?”
In the cities, it is instead the Left Party that raises hackles. Their stance on taxes and economic issues as well as their radical foreign policy were anathema to middle-class voters. Moreover, many people had deep misgivings about whether the party had genuinely come to terms with its communist past.
This inability to appeal to the middle classes and wide demographic swathes of the electorate is reflected by the fact that only 22 per cent of gainfully employed voters pulled the lever for the Social Democrats in this year’s elections. The party is instead increasingly perceived to be close to – and are indeed mainly attracting – the jobless: the unemployed, people on long-term sick leave or others who depend on the state. This is not a position from which we can help them.
The bottom line is that the red-green alliance served to do little more than drive wedges deep into the heart of the Social Democratic voter base. The results were unsurprisingly disastrous.
The time has come for unflinching introspection. We social democrats – in Sweden and across Europe – should not look to clone or cosy-up to the policies of our real, perceived or imagined allies. Rather we must shape a modern political identity grounded firmly in our own principles in order to remain the leading force in progressive politics. It is only then that we can craft and convey a policy agenda that speaks with conviction to people from all walks of life.
Green Waste: Subsidies, Green Jobs Go Up In Smoke
Energy company Nuon is to sell or close down its solar panel factory in Arnhem as part of a cost-cutting measure by parent group Vattenfall, the Volkskrant reports on Thursday, quoting confidential documents.
Chinese company Hanenergy is interested in solar panel firm Helianthos but if the sale falls through, the plant will be closed down, the paper says.
The Helianthos plant, which employs 60 people, has had €15m in government subsidies over the past 10 years. Nuon itself has invested up to €100m, the paper says.
Nuon was taken over by Sweden’s state-owned Vattenfall last year after its local government shareholders were given a guarantee the company would ‘continue its current strategy with regard to renewable energy’.
According to internal company documents, Helianthos’ technology is ‘almost ready to be scaled up’, but that it is ‘not a core Nuon or Vattenfall business’ and there will be ‘no further investment’ in the factory.
In an internal company memo, Nuon strategists say closure carries a risk of negative reactions from the media and politicians given ‘Helianthos is seen as a green, innovative company, with recent research successes (a world record) and lots of subsidies.’
Britain's Green Car Fiasco Deepens (But Not To Worry – Taxpayers Will Subsidise Wealthy Greens)
From "The Guardian"
Sales of new electric cars in the UK plummeted by nearly 90% in 2009 compared with their peak in 2007, according to motoring trade association figures released this week. Just 55 of the green cars – whose fans include Boris Johnson, Jonathan Ross and Jade Jagger – were registered in 2009, in contrast to 397 in 2007, says the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
The huge fall is a blow to UK efforts to meet tough carbon emission cut targets in a decade, and comes just months before the government introduces a subsidy of up to £5,000 off new electric cars.
Nearly half of the electric vehicles sold last year were the tiny G-Wiz car. The latest model has a top speed of 50mph and a range of 48 miles between charges.
Rudi Schogger, managing director of Goingreen, which distributes the G-Wiz in the UK, said: "Some people might be waiting for the government grants to arrive before purchasing an EV." He added that, even with a grant, most of the new vehicles on the market will be more expensive than a G-Wiz.
Although sales of all new cars fell sharply in 2009 due to the recession, the drop in new registrations for electric cars was around eight times higher. Overall, 2m new cars were registered in 2009, the lowest level since 1995.
Richard Dyer, transport campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "The number of electric car sales are certainly disappointing. It could well be down to the recession, and the fact that they are priced at a premium over normal cars. But the government grant in January should mean a change in the fortunes of electric cars."
In January, the coalition will begin offering up to £5,000 towards the price of a series of newly launched electric cars, as part of a subsidy announced by the former Labour government. The Department for Transport (DfT) anticipates around 8,600 of the cars will be sold in the first year of the scheme. The government has so far committed £43m for the scheme to run until March 2012, with a review taking place in January 2012, but in yesterday's spending review it talked of "supporting consumer incentives for electric and other low-emission cars throughout the life of this parliament," suggesting the subsidy would continue after March 2012 though possibly at a lower rate.
The EPA’s motor vehicle dreamland
Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed in a "Notice of Intent" that passenger vehicle fuel economy average as much as 62 miles per gallon 14 years from now. The agency was able to arrive at this lofty mark by conveniently ignoring everything we know about the state of automotive art and the marketplace today.
For one thing, the average passenger car is going to have to get a lot more than 62 mpg to meet EPA's standard. People are still going to need trucks, vans, and high-volume vehicles that will fall far short of the 62-mpg standard. As a result, what is today's Honda Civic or Ford Fusion is somehow going to have to crank out about 80 miles per gallon.
Today, the vaunted hybrid versions of those cars generally deliver 35-40 mpg if driven with a very light touch. ("Your mileage will vary.")
The current mileage champion, at 50 mpg, is the third-generation Toyota Prius. But don't look for that design to meet EPA's prospective standard; it's just too heavy to squeeze much more juice out of the gas.
To bolster its 62-mpg proposal, EPA produced a numbing 245-page analysis of prospective automotive technologies — many of which don't exist, the rest of which have been rejected by consumers. The report doesn't mandate any one technology, but instead offers a myriad of pipe-dream possibilities.
Why aren't these technologies widely available now? Excellent question — especially because this isn't the government's first attempt to command the 80-mpg passenger car.
In 1993, the Clinton administration grandiosely announced the "Program for a New Generation of Vehicles" (PNGV), which showered the then-Big Three with about a billion bucks to produce a fuel-sipper. It never appeared.
The technological solutions proposed then really aren't very different from what we see now. Cost and acceptability were the two factors that condemned the PNGV to failure, and things haven't changed enough to expect a different result today.
A non-participant in PNGV, Honda, decided to throw every fuel-saving technology it could muster into one platform. It hit 66 mpg with the 2000 Insight, a frameless 1,850-pound aluminum vehicle that seats two. Consumer demand? An average of 2,250 sold annually in the six years it was offered.
Despite the relative success of Toyota's Prius, the fact is that people just aren't flocking to hybrid vehicles. Their lack of appeal mainly has to do with price; people just don't want to pony up an additional cost that may take more than 10 years to recoup at the gas pump.
Despite this history, EPA thinks there will be a massive shift to subcompact cars in the next six ears. Instead of the Accord, you get the Fit. Camrys turn into Yarises. Consumer preferences magically change. Indeed.
EPA forecasts that despite their current unpopularity, hybrid sales will grow by orders of magnitude. Especially large numbers of Honda-style hybrids are predicted to be purchased (despite the fact that hybrid customers clearly prefer the heavier Toyota and Ford versions).
Sales of "plug-in" hybrids also supposedly will take off. These are vehicles that can run on battery power alone for 20-40 miles, and then (as in the new Chevrolet Volt) a gas engine kicks in as a generator. EPA is also counting on pure electric vehicles, with a range of up to 100 miles before they must be charged — a process that takes hours at special charging stations on the street or overnight at home.
Drive the Chevy Volt more than 30 or so miles and it will be powered by a generator — not a motor — inefficiently powering a 3,500-pound car. No one knows the true fuel economy, but it's not even likely to beat the Prius in real-world driving. That leaves us a long way from 80 mpg.
(The above information about the Volt was what I was told by a GM engineer at the Detroit auto show last January, while sitting in the very car. GM revealed on Oct. 10 that the internal combustion engine indeed will drive the wheels at high speed. This is no breakthrough automobile; on the freeway it is a conventional hybrid.)
Then there's the heavily subsidized, all-electric Nissan Leaf. The company's president, Carlos Ghosn, says he will be happy to produce them as long as Uncle Sam guarantees him a profit on a vehicle that simply can't stand on its own four wheels. The electricity that charges it probably comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gases. Calculating the actual mpg of this car is therefore complicated at best.
So far as one can tell from EPA's 62-mpg proposal, the agency thinks that in a mere 14 years Americans will buy hybrids that they can't stand, subcompacts that families hate, an electric car that can only run 30 miles before it likely becomes more inefficient than its conventional counterpart, and a 100-mile electric car that requires hours of charging once it runs out of juice.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here